Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Sprak Wordschatt united

Expand Messages
  • chamavian
    ... united ... thing, ... My trivIAL way is: ig bite ig bitede ig ha bited ChamavIAL
    Message 1 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Matt Emson <Memsom@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > stefichjo wrote:
      > > > > Hi!
      > > > >
      > > > > I want to inform you that my Wordschatt (dictionary) has been
      united
      > > > > with the list of loans (mainly Latin based loans)
      > > > OT: Though this is entirely puerile, every time I read the word
      > > > "Wordschatt" I giggle to myself. Maybe it's just a British
      thing,
      > > does
      > > > anyone else see the joke?
      > > >
      > > > M
      > > >
      > >
      > > words' chat? word shat?
      >
      > I shat many, many words.
      > Please prono "Wordschatt" with [a], anyway.
      >
      > BTW, the strong conjugaton of "schite" is (in Sprak):
      >
      > schite: ik schit, ik schitt, ik hav schitten
      >
      >
      > Alternatively, I could speak about another verb, "bite":
      >
      > bite: ik bit, ik bitt, ik hav bitten
      > -> en bitt, en bittke
      >
      >
      > (Other verbs with this pattern are denoted with "[i-i-i]".)
      > http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak/_Sprak/_Wortschatz
      >
      >
      > How would you render such verbs? (Except of the "trivial solution":
      > "bite, bited, bited".)
      >
      > Bye,
      > Stephan
      >

      My 'trivIAL' way is:

      ig bite
      ig bitede
      ig ha bited

      ChamavIAL
    • stefichjo
      ... Any non-trivial way, too? BTW: One thing I like very much about strong verbs is the denominalisation: ik bit, ik bitt - en bitt ik sprek, ik sprak - en
      Message 2 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Matt Emson <Memsom@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > stefichjo wrote:
        > > > > > Hi!
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I want to inform you that my Wordschatt (dictionary) has been
        > united
        > > > > > with the list of loans (mainly Latin based loans)
        > > > > OT: Though this is entirely puerile, every time I read the word
        > > > > "Wordschatt" I giggle to myself. Maybe it's just a British
        > thing,
        > > > does
        > > > > anyone else see the joke?
        > > > >
        > > > > M
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > words' chat? word shat?
        > >
        > > I shat many, many words.
        > > Please prono "Wordschatt" with [a], anyway.
        > >
        > > BTW, the strong conjugaton of "schite" is (in Sprak):
        > >
        > > schite: ik schit, ik schitt, ik hav schitten
        > >
        > >
        > > Alternatively, I could speak about another verb, "bite":
        > >
        > > bite: ik bit, ik bitt, ik hav bitten
        > > -> en bitt, en bittke
        > >
        > >
        > > (Other verbs with this pattern are denoted with "[i-i-i]".)
        > > http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak/_Sprak/_Wortschatz
        > >
        > >
        > > How would you render such verbs? (Except of the "trivial solution":
        > > "bite, bited, bited".)
        > >
        > > Bye,
        > > Stephan
        > >
        >
        > My 'trivIAL' way is:
        >
        > ig bite
        > ig bitede
        > ig ha bited
        >
        > ChamavIAL
        >


        Any non-trivial way, too?

        BTW: One thing I like very much about strong verbs is the
        denominalisation:

        ik bit, ik bitt -> en bitt
        ik sprek, ik sprak -> en sprak
        ik gev, ik hav -> en gav


        StephIAL
      • chamavian
        ... the ... Shyster. ... Well, we can see the level of humor is pretty high in Little Britain
        Message 3 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Matt Emson <Memsom@...> wrote:
          >
          > stefichjo wrote:
          > >> words' chat? word shat?
          > >>
          > >
          > > I shat many, many words.
          > > Please prono "Wordschatt" with [a], anyway.
          > >
          > >
          > It looks like "shat" because of the double consonant.
          >
          > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shat
          >
          > It's a bit like "shite", oddly like the German word isn't it? Isn't
          the
          > German "Scheisse" or something like that? Which also sounds like
          Shyster.
          >
          > On the dictionary front - as A Brit, I say DIC-SHERN-REE.
          >
          > Anyhoo..
          >
          > M
          >

          Well, we can see the level of humor is pretty high in Little Britain
        • clayton_rc
          ig beite, ig bit, ig hav bitten Ig will een bit av brood.
          Message 4 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            ig beite, ig bit, ig hav bitten

            Ig will een bit av brood.
          • stefichjo
            ... Any rule behind it, or just an arbitrary choice of words? Stephan
            Message 5 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc" <entrelenga@...> wrote:
              >
              > ig beite, ig bit, ig hav bitten
              >
              > Ig will een bit av brood.
              >

              Any rule behind it, or just an arbitrary choice of words?

              Stephan
            • chamavian
              ... The rules needed for so called strong or irregular verbs will always be too arbitrary and too complicated for an IAL that FS is supposed to be. It is
              Message 6 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:

                The rules needed for so called strong or irregular verbs will always be
                too arbitrary and too complicated for an IAL that FS is supposed to be.

                It is possible to have very simple, easy and unambiguous rules for the
                verb tenses: regular rules, the ones you called 'trivial', based on the
                regular verbs in our source languages.

                infinitive:
                bite

                present: same as infinitive:
                ig bite, du bite, he bite, wi bite, ji bite, dei bite

                past: infinitive + -de
                ig bitede, du bitede, si bitede, wi bitede, ji bitede, dei bitede

                perfect: infinitive + -d
                ig ha bited, du ha bited etc.


                I know this step is hard to make for some of you, but this actually
                still surprises me a lot when I see what the rest of your dialects
                looks like in other subjects.


                Ingmar






                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc" <entrelenga@> wrote:
                > >
                > > ig beite, ig bit, ig hav bitten
                > >
                > > Ig will een bit av brood.
                > >
                >
                > Any rule behind it, or just an arbitrary choice of words?
                >
                > Stephan
                >
              • Matt Emson
                ... Yer, but no, but, yeah, but, Janice Pollard, did it wiv Gavin Smith behind Tescos.. she did,, even though Carry Jones were his bird, like, yeah, but like.
                Message 7 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  chamavian wrote:
                  > Well, we can see the level of humor is pretty high in Little Britain
                  >
                  Yer, but no, but, yeah, but, Janice Pollard, did it wiv Gavin Smith
                  behind Tescos.. she did,, even though Carry Jones were his bird, like,
                  yeah, but like. Laterz.
                • stefichjo
                  I must apologize. When I said * ik bit, ik bited, ik hav bited is trivial , I meant it would be a trivial solution in the mathematical sense. I didn t mean
                  Message 8 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I must apologize. When I said

                    * ik bit, ik bited, ik hav bited

                    is "trivial", I meant it would be a "trivial solution" in the
                    mathematical sense. I didn't mean that this solution is "of little
                    value or importance". On the contrary, this is _the_ solution for FS
                    in my opinion.


                    infinitive:
                    bite

                    imperative:
                    bit!

                    present tense:
                    ik bit, du bit, hi bit, wi bit, ji bit, de bit

                    past tense: + ed
                    ik bited, du bited, hi bited, wi bited, ji bited, de bited

                    future tense: + schall
                    ik schall bite, du schall bite, hi schall bite, wi schall bite, ji
                    schall bite, de schall bite

                    present perfect: hav + ed
                    ik hav bited, du hav bited, hi hav bited, wi hav bited, ji hav bited,
                    de hav bited

                    past perfect: had + ed
                    ik had bited, du had bited, hi had bited, wi had bited, ji had bited,
                    de had bited

                    future perfect: schall + have + ed
                    ik schall have bited, du schall have bited, hi schall have bited, wi
                    schall have bited, ji schall have bited, de schall have bited


                    The ending "-e" has a specific function in Sprak, the subjunctive. I
                    don't think it should be used in FS, though. Therefore I don't think
                    the ending "-e" should be used at all in conjugation.

                    Unfortunately I can explain the subjunctive only with the German
                    Konjunktiv:

                    "du have bited" - "du habest gebissen"
                    "du hav bited" - "du hast gebissen"

                    "du bite" - "du beißest"
                    "du bit" - "du beißt"

                    "ik bited" - "ich biss"
                    "ik bitede" - "ich bisse"



                    For the sake of completeness, I add the subjunctive forms, too.


                    present tense subjunctive: + e
                    ik bite, du bite, hi bite, wi bite, ji bite, de bite

                    past tense subjunctive: + ed + e
                    ik bitede, du bitede, hi bitede, wi bitede, ji bitede, de bitede

                    future tense subjunctive: + schall + e
                    ik schalle bite, du schalle bite, hi schalle bite, wi schalle bite, ji
                    schalle bite, de schalle bite

                    present perfect subjunctive: hav + e + ed
                    ik have bited, du have bited, hi have bited, wi have bited, ji have
                    bited, de have bited

                    past perfect subjunctive: had + e + ed
                    ik hade bited, du hade bited, hi hade bited, wi hade bited, ji hade
                    bited, de hade bited

                    future perfect subjunctive: schall + e + have + ed
                    ik schalle have bited, du schalle have bited, hi schalle have bited,
                    wi schalle have bited, ji schalle have bited, de schalle have bited



                    What do you mean, it still surprises you a lot when you see what the
                    rest of our dialects look like in other subjects? Do you mean other
                    aspects of ours dialects are so well done, only the verbs are not? ;-)
                    No, really, I don't understand, please explain.


                    Now you might ask why I have mentioned

                    * ik bit, ik bitt, ik hav bitten

                    at all. It's just a "what if" question, then. BUT, in this
                    what-if-scenario the past tense form "ik bitt" ("I bit") should be the
                    same as the denominalisation "en bitt" (EN "a bit"). So, nonetheless
                    the question is, what should the denominalisation of "bite" look like
                    in FS?


                    OT: the word "Shattner" just came in mind to me...
                    Stephan



                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                    >
                    > The rules needed for so called strong or irregular verbs will always be
                    > too arbitrary and too complicated for an IAL that FS is supposed to be.
                    >
                    > It is possible to have very simple, easy and unambiguous rules for the
                    > verb tenses: regular rules, the ones you called 'trivial', based on the
                    > regular verbs in our source languages.
                    >
                    > infinitive:
                    > bite
                    >
                    > present: same as infinitive:
                    > ig bite, du bite, he bite, wi bite, ji bite, dei bite
                    >
                    > past: infinitive + -de
                    > ig bitede, du bitede, si bitede, wi bitede, ji bitede, dei bitede
                    >
                    > perfect: infinitive + -d
                    > ig ha bited, du ha bited etc.
                    >
                    >
                    > I know this step is hard to make for some of you, but this actually
                    > still surprises me a lot when I see what the rest of your dialects
                    > looks like in other subjects.
                    >
                    >
                    > Ingmar
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc" <entrelenga@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > ig beite, ig bit, ig hav bitten
                    > > >
                    > > > Ig will een bit av brood.
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > > Any rule behind it, or just an arbitrary choice of words?
                    > >
                    > > Stephan
                    > >
                    >
                  • chamavian
                    I knowwww.... ... Britain ... like,
                    Message 9 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I knowwww....

                      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Matt Emson <Memsom@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > chamavian wrote:
                      > > Well, we can see the level of humor is pretty high in Little
                      Britain
                      > >
                      > Yer, but no, but, yeah, but, Janice Pollard, did it wiv Gavin Smith
                      > behind Tescos.. she did,, even though Carry Jones were his bird,
                      like,
                      > yeah, but like. Laterz.
                      >
                    • chamavian
                      ... I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn t seem to be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind of plural, leaving
                      Message 10 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:

                        > What do you mean, it still surprises you a lot when you see what the
                        > rest of our dialects look like in other subjects? Do you mean other
                        > aspects of ours dialects are so well done, only the verbs are not? ;-)
                        > No, really, I don't understand, please explain.

                        I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn't seem to
                        be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind of
                        plural, leaving out umlauts, and all kind of other 'ornaments', but
                        when it comes to strong verbs, all of a sudden all these complicated
                        and unpredictable patterns seem to be indispensable. Can't see why...
                      • stefichjo
                        ... OK, now I understand. As you can see, I m pro regularity in this case, too. I wouldn t see why either. But, what about en bitt (EN a bit )? Do you
                        Message 11 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                          >
                          > > What do you mean, it still surprises you a lot when you see what the
                          > > rest of our dialects look like in other subjects? Do you mean other
                          > > aspects of ours dialects are so well done, only the verbs are not? ;-)
                          > > No, really, I don't understand, please explain.
                          >
                          > I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn't seem to
                          > be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind of
                          > plural, leaving out umlauts, and all kind of other 'ornaments', but
                          > when it comes to strong verbs, all of a sudden all these complicated
                          > and unpredictable patterns seem to be indispensable. Can't see why...

                          OK, now I understand. As you can see, I'm pro regularity in this case,
                          too. I wouldn't "see why" either.

                          But, what about "en bitt" (EN "a bit")? Do you agree this word should
                          exist? I think it should exist and that it is an irregularity, or
                          something that simply has to be learnt in FS, that there is a verb
                          "bite" and a cognate word "bitt", and there was no way of telling
                          (knowing the word "bite") that the word should be "bitt", or "bet" or
                          whatsoever.
                          Same with "spreke" and "en sprak". Just two different words, and no
                          grammatical frame that keeps them together. Just two items of
                          vocabulary that need to be learnt, period.

                          Stephan
                        • clayton_rc
                          ... - English has a single gender; - Dutch plural is mostly regular - Dutch leaves out most umlauts ... - not one Germlang is free from strong verbs So I bring
                          Message 12 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn't seem to
                            > be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind of
                            > plural, leaving out umlauts, and all kind of other 'ornaments', but
                            > when it comes to strong verbs, all of a sudden all these complicated
                            > and unpredictable patterns seem to be indispensable. Can't see why...
                            >

                            - English has a single gender;
                            - Dutch plural is mostly regular
                            - Dutch leaves out most umlauts
                            ...
                            - not one Germlang is free from strong verbs


                            So I bring back an old issue... what would be the intended "niche" of
                            Folkspraak?
                            Is it designed to frontally compete with other IALs?
                            Or does it follow a slightly (or totally) different direction?

                            I may sound stubborn about it, but once we have settled this, many
                            eventual decisions will be easier to be taken.


                            Clayton
                          • chamavian
                            ... case, ... should ... or ... En bitt could be synonymous to en lyttel . Next to its core meaning, a bite . Ig had en bitt broed - I had a bit of bread =
                            Message 13 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > OK, now I understand. As you can see, I'm pro regularity in this
                              case,
                              > too. I wouldn't "see why" either.
                              >
                              > But, what about "en bitt" (EN "a bit")? Do you agree this word
                              should
                              > exist? I think it should exist and that it is an irregularity, or
                              > something that simply has to be learnt in FS, that there is a verb
                              > "bite" and a cognate word "bitt", and there was no way of telling
                              > (knowing the word "bite") that the word should be "bitt", or "bet"
                              or
                              > whatsoever.
                              > Same with "spreke" and "en sprak". Just two different words, and no
                              > grammatical frame that keeps them together. Just two items of
                              > vocabulary that need to be learnt, period.
                              >
                              > Stephan
                              >

                              "En bitt" could be synonymous to "en lyttel".
                              Next to its core meaning, "a bite".

                              Ig had en bitt broed - I had a bit of bread = ig had en lyttel broed
                              Ig had en bitt af de broed - I had a bit of the (this) bread
                              Ig had en bitt af de broed - I had a bite of the bread
                            • stefichjo
                              ... seem to ... Hi Clayton. I don t understand your question and why you raise it, i.e. what s the connection with strong verbs. What do you mean niche ?
                              Message 14 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc" <entrelenga@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn't
                                seem to
                                > > be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind of
                                > > plural, leaving out umlauts, and all kind of other 'ornaments', but
                                > > when it comes to strong verbs, all of a sudden all these complicated
                                > > and unpredictable patterns seem to be indispensable. Can't see why...
                                > >
                                >
                                > - English has a single gender;
                                > - Dutch plural is mostly regular
                                > - Dutch leaves out most umlauts
                                > ...
                                > - not one Germlang is free from strong verbs
                                >
                                >
                                > So I bring back an old issue... what would be the intended "niche" of
                                > Folkspraak?
                                > Is it designed to frontally compete with other IALs?
                                > Or does it follow a slightly (or totally) different direction?
                                >
                                > I may sound stubborn about it, but once we have settled this, many
                                > eventual decisions will be easier to be taken.
                                >
                                >
                                > Clayton

                                Hi Clayton.
                                I don't understand your question and why you raise it, i.e. what's the
                                connection with strong verbs. What do you mean "niche"?

                                Stephan
                              • chamavian
                                ... seem to ... of ... but ... complicated ... why... ... of ... The niche could be that there has been no serious artificial germanic based language until
                                Message 15 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc" <entrelenga@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn't
                                  seem to
                                  > > be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind
                                  of
                                  > > plural, leaving out umlauts, and all kind of other 'ornaments',
                                  but
                                  > > when it comes to strong verbs, all of a sudden all these
                                  complicated
                                  > > and unpredictable patterns seem to be indispensable. Can't see
                                  why...
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > - English has a single gender
                                  > - Dutch plural is mostly regular
                                  > - Dutch leaves out most umlauts
                                  > ...
                                  > - not one Germlang is free from strong verbs
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > So I bring back an old issue... what would be the intended "niche"
                                  of
                                  > Folkspraak?

                                  The niche could be that there has been no serious artificial germanic
                                  based language until now. And there is e.g. Interlingua for Romance,
                                  Slovia for Slavonic etc.


                                  > Is it designed to frontally compete with other IALs?

                                  No, not really, but maybe to compete with other lingua francas like
                                  English


                                  > Or does it follow a slightly (or totally) different direction?

                                  For the Germanic speaking area (maybe excluding the English speaking
                                  area), Folksprak could theoretically serve as a common language

                                  >
                                  > I may sound stubborn about it, but once we have settled this, many
                                  > eventual decisions will be easier to be taken.

                                  You mean, settled the goals of FS?


                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Clayton
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.